the article you sent states…
“Strained attempts to have Peter, the Apostle to the Hebrews of the East, in Paul’s territory at Rome and martyred there are unworthy of serious consideration in the light of all contemporary evidence. At his age (eighty-two), that would not have been practicable. In none of Paul’s writings is there the slightest intimation that Peter ever had been or was at that city. All statements to the contrary were made centuries later and are fanciful and hearsay. The Papacy was not organized until the second half of the 8th century. It broke away from the Eastern Church (in the Ency. Brit., 13th Ed., vol. 21, page 636) under Pippin III; also the Papacy, by Abbe Guette.”
Ignatius of Antioch;
“Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]). (( Peter commanded the Romans…and this statement
was made in 110, only a few years after Peter’s death, not
“centuries later” like the article states. ))
“this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
(( how could Peter ordain Clement in the church of Rome
without being the bishop of Rome? ))
and there are dozens of examples… plus
1 Peter 5:13 ( KJV )
“The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son." (( Babylon, being Rome,
as almost unanamously accepted by historians, and used in
Revelations 14:8 17:5 and 18:2 ))
Peter was in Rome… was martyred there…
